NBC/WSJ poll: Obama bouncing back

[Sallow]

More evidence that the election wasn't a rejection of Obama policy, Democratic policy, liberalism, or anything of the sort. It was a vote against the slowness of the economic recovery.

Right.

And Dems just happened to lose Congress.

It was all a coincidence.

The Dems..lost the House.

Not the Senate.

 

[rightwinger]

The hardest part for the Republicans is they lack a viable candidate for 2012. They will run a sacraficial candidate (Huckabee or Romney) in 2012 and hold back their better candidates (Rubio, Christie, Brown) for 2016.

The interesting contest will be the House and Senate

Obama came out of nowhere to bamboozle everyone......

First.......When have republicans ever picked a candidate out of nowhere?

Second.....Obama was a known candidate but was considered a better bet for 2012

 

[rightwinger]

More evidence that the election wasn't a rejection of Obama policy, Democratic policy, liberalism, or anything of the sort. It was a vote against the slowness of the economic recovery.

Right.

And Dems just happened to lose Congress.

It was all a coincidence.

The Dems..lost the House.

Not the Senate.

It was the Tea Baggers who lost the Senate

 

[Samson]

Right.

And Dems just happened to lose Congress.

It was all a coincidence.

The Dems..lost the House.

Not the Senate.

It was the Tea Baggers who lost the Senate

I didn't know the Tea Bag Party had a majority to lose?

Anyway, good try attempting to dodge the fact: Dems Lost Congress.

I can understand why you're nervous about 2012.

 

[rightwinger]

The Dems..lost the House.

Not the Senate.

It was the Tea Baggers who lost the Senate

I didn't know the Tea Bag Party had a majority to lose?

Anyway, good try attempting to dodge the fact: Dems Lost Congress.

I can understand why you're nervous about 2012.

Dems lost the House

Tea Baggers lost the Senate

 

[Cuyo]

More evidence that the election wasn't a rejection of Obama policy, Democratic policy, liberalism, or anything of the sort. It was a vote against the slowness of the economic recovery.

That is how you see it.

I see it as the election actually woke him up and he is now proving to independants and some republicans that he CAN triangulate.

I believe Reid and Pelosi COMBINED was the worst thing for him.

With one out of a position of control, Obama now has the lead...as he should have since his first day.

I agree BUT, I think he gave them control and set them up....

I've been hoping all along that he's playing chess, and not checkers. Cause if it's checkers - He was clearly making a lot of losing moves.

Guess we'll see what happens. Everyone (except Rasmussen, of course) has him above water for the first time in awhile. As long as recovery chugs along and Republicans keep acting like a bunch of insolent children, looks like four more years.

 

[Cuyo]

uhm how did you get there?

Because MOST Americans aren't as ideological as the screaming pundits would have you believe. Not everyone has abandoned his own ability to reason and given that task to beck and Limbaugh.

People always vote their wallets. This mid term was all economy, not all ideology.

Naw.

It was a mixed bag.

Some ideology and some economy.

Actually, it was virtually all lies, and lies tend to eventually be exposed.

 

[Samson]

It was the Tea Baggers who lost the Senate

I didn't know the Tea Bag Party had a majority to lose?

Anyway, good try attempting to dodge the fact: Dems Lost Congress.

I can understand why you're nervous about 2012.

Dems lost the House

Tea Baggers lost the Senate

The Tea Bag Party never had the senate.

Sorry to burst your bubble.

 

[Claudette]

I think he had a wakeup call in Nov.

He will now pretend to move to the center. If the economy and the job situation improves he will probably get a second term.

He just doesn't have a majority and will actually have to work with the Reps. If the economy and jobs are still in the toilet then he won't get that second term.

Its the economy stupid.

 

[rightwinger]

I didn't know the Tea Bag Party had a majority to lose?

Anyway, good try attempting to dodge the fact: Dems Lost Congress.

I can understand why you're nervous about 2012.

Dems lost the House

Tea Baggers lost the Senate

The Tea Bag Party never had the senate.

Sorry to burst your bubble.

I'm afraid that the GOP had a lock on the Senate until the Tea Baggers got a hold of them. O'Donnell in Delaware, Angle in Nevada, Buck in Colorado, McMahon in Connectecut all Tea Party darlings who managed to lose can't lose contests

 

[Samson]

Dems lost the House

Tea Baggers lost the Senate

The Tea Bag Party never had the senate.

Sorry to burst your bubble.

I'm afraid that the GOP had a lock on the Senate until the Tea Baggers got a hold of them. O'Donnell in Delaware, Angle in Nevada, Buck in Colorado, McMahon in Connectecut all Tea Party darlings who managed to lose can't lose contests

Speculation vs Fact.

Fact:
1. Dems Lost Congress in November, 2010
2. GOP Won a majority in the HoR.

Speculation:
1. The Tea Bag Party would = GOP
2. The GOP would have won the Senate

 

[NYcarbineer]

More evidence that the election wasn't a rejection of Obama policy, Democratic policy, liberalism, or anything of the sort. It was a vote against the slowness of the economic recovery.

Right.

And Dems just happened to lose Congress.

It was all a coincidence.

That's not what I said, idiot.

 

[NYcarbineer]

More evidence that the election wasn't a rejection of Obama policy, Democratic policy, liberalism, or anything of the sort. It was a vote against the slowness of the economic recovery.

uhm how did you get there?

Common sense.

 

[Trajan]

The hardest part for the Republicans is they lack a viable candidate for 2012. They will run a sacraficial candidate (Huckabee or Romney) in 2012 and hold back their better candidates (Rubio, Christie, Brown) for 2016.

The interesting contest will be the House and Senate

hold back? uhm no, they are not seasoned enough, others can run unicorn candidates whose only portfolio was "present", hubris, an ability to 'turn off his blackness' and of course is; "articulate and bright and clean".

 

[Trajan]

More evidence that the election wasn't a rejection of Obama policy, Democratic policy, liberalism, or anything of the sort. It was a vote against the slowness of the economic recovery.

uhm how did you get there?

Common sense.

please explain it to me.

 

[MikeK]

If there is any truth to the murmering that he is contemplating cuts to Social Security it will ensure that he won't have another term, which I believe is okay with him. I don't believe he's ever wanted another term. I believe he has other plans.

 

[rightwinger]

The hardest part for the Republicans is they lack a viable candidate for 2012. They will run a sacraficial candidate (Huckabee or Romney) in 2012 and hold back their better candidates (Rubio, Christie, Brown) for 2016.

The interesting contest will be the House and Senate

hold back? uhm no, they are not seasoned enough, others can run unicorn candidates whose only portfolio was "present", hubris, an ability to 'turn off his blackness' and of course is; "articulate and bright and clean".

Thanks for your comments....

We are all a little bit dumber for having read them

"present" that's a good one

 

[Trajan]

The hardest part for the Republicans is they lack a viable candidate for 2012. They will run a sacraficial candidate (Huckabee or Romney) in 2012 and hold back their better candidates (Rubio, Christie, Brown) for 2016.

The interesting contest will be the House and Senate

hold back? uhm no, they are not seasoned enough, others can run unicorn candidates whose only portfolio was "present", hubris, an ability to 'turn off his blackness' and of course is; "articulate and bright and clean".

Thanks for your comments....

We are all a little bit dumber for having read them

"present" that's a good one

I see, so we are in full "snippiness" now. tsk tsk.

For the record, after the finger, now this, you get what you deserve form here on out, it appears civility is just another word to you, and again your hypocrisy is on display.... its a bummer having to deal with the baseline racial stereotypical hostility vomited up by those you follow and admire.

as far as being dumber, you don't need any help from me on that score, you've got it down bro.

 

[Trajan]

If there is any truth to the murmering that he is contemplating cuts to Social Security it will ensure that he won't have another term, which I believe is okay with him. I don't believe he's ever wanted another term. I believe he has other plans.

I think you're right, I think hes bored, he looking for the next mountain to climb, but alas, there isn't one.

He'll be twice as miserable when he leaves office than he is now. And he'll make us suffer for it too.

 

[NYcarbineer]

uhm how did you get there?

Common sense.

please explain it to me.

Voters throw out the incumbents when they're unhappy with the economy. Did they throw out Democrats because of the healthcare bill?

Hardly. 2 out 3 House Democrats who voted AGAINST the healthcare bill lost their re-election bids.

Why? Because they were in swing districts, and the districts swung back to the GOP. Their votes didn't save them because it was throw the incumbents out time, because of the economy.

Seven out of the ten Democrats who voted AGAINST the stimulus bill also lost.

As a Democrat, you had a better odds of getting re-elected if you voted for healthcare and for the stimulus.